Pages

Tuesday, July 21, 2015

A Reply to ‘Abdul Haq Al-Ashanti’s “Critique” of My articles on Neo-Traditional Salafi construction of the Religious Other

A Reply to ‘Abdul Haq Al-Ashanti’s
“Critique” of My articles on Neo-Traditional Salafi construction of the
Religious Other

By Adis Duderija, Ph.D.

Couple of months ago I was contacted by email byAbdulHaq ibn Kofi ibn Kwesi
al-Ashanti who informed me that he
wrote a ‘critique’ of my two
articles on what I term Neo-traditional Salafi (NTS) construction of the
Religious Other (the articles in
question can be read here
and here
) in which he has made a number of erroneous claims about my work that deserve
unequivocal refutation. More importantly,
‘Abdul Haqq’s ‘critique’ warrants attention because it illustrates well the problematic nature of more mainstream
classical Sunni manahij ( sg. manhaj) on not only the normative relationship
between the Muslim Self and the Religious other but also on other issues
pertaining to gender
, violence and tolerance.

REPLY TO POINT ONE:

‘Abdul Haq starts his ‘critique’ by rightly complaining that
the label as well as the concept of Salafism , its historical roots and manhaj
in particular, have in many
contemporary discussions ,especially political, been abused and/or poorly understood by reducing them to a
phenomenon that does not go beyond the
life and works of Abdul Wahhab ,a 19th century puritan reformer.
However, he mistakenly includes my work as an example of this kind of
scholarship.

For example in
one of my articles ‘Abdul Haqq
‘critiques’ I clearly link and describe
NTS manhaj with that of the
pre-modern ahl-hadith several times. On the very first page of the
article ( p.76) in question when defining NTS I state that an alternative label
that could be used namely neo-ahl-hadithism. ‘Abdul Haqq misunderstands
that my use of the prefix ‘neo’ as in neo-traditional Salafism ( NTS) means
that NTS manhaj has no historical roots in the Islamic tradition ( see below).
He writes on p.8 :

By using the word ‘neo’
however the impression given is that Salafism has concocted a new approach which
has no roots in the traditionalist and juristic-classicist approach of Islamic
scholarship….

The prefix “ neo’ ,as
in case of neo-traditional , neo-liberal or neo-conservative in actual fact suggest
quite the contrary. It means that there is a clear conceptual continuity and
link between the contemporary ‘neo’ and the original concept may that be
traditionalism, conservatism or liberalism. But this is not a simple mistake
that can be reduced to the misunderstanding of the semantics of the prefix
‘neo’. This is so because ‘Abdul Haqq did not need to look far ( but he clearly choose to overlook it) that on p.76-78 in the very same
article I have clearly linked NTS with
the pre-modern ahl-hadith repeatedly

On p.76 I state:

The epistemological framework of
the Islamic tradition (turath) in NTS thought asserts that ahl al-hadith
(Melchert 2000, 6) are the sole and true followers of the al-salaf al-salih
understanding of the scope and the nature of the concept of Sunna because of
their literal adherence to ‘authentic’ Hadith.

On p.77 I write:

As part of their overall claim to
be the sole custodians of the al-salaf al- salih understanding of the scope and
nature of the concept of Sunna, NTS scholars maintain that the way in which the
nature and the scope of the Qur’an and Sunna were understood and interpreted
from the time of the Prophet until now remained the same and is adhered to in
its original form by the ahl al- hadıth.

A mere few paragraphs after I write:

NTS scholars claim to be the sole
custodians of the al-salaf al-salih understanding of the concept of the Sunna by
adhering to the ahl al- hadıth manhaj of understanding and interpreting the
Qur’an and Sunna through the classical ‘ulum al- hadıth science, namely the
‘authentic Hadith’ as defined by ahl al- hadıth.

Moreover if this was not enough, had ‘Abdul Haqq taken the
time to read my book
(or other articles here
and here
) I published on NTS on the same subject matter ( as far as
the historical background behind NTS and its manhaj is concerned) he would have realized that in the book one
complete chapter is devoted to establishing the link between NTS and ahl-hadith
,especially in terms of their manhaj and their understanding of the nature and
the scope of the concept of sunna.

Importantly, the actual assertion by (neo)-ahl hadith/NTS to be the sole custodians of the al-salaf al- salih manhaj generally or that in relation to sunna
specifically , a belief that is contested by other classical madhahib
who make the very same claim, as I have shown elsewhere ( here
and here
) is ahistorical. So , as I
argued in my book and in this short article
, the concept of Salafism in Sunnism is
a contested concept that signifies a
particular approach to interpretation of the Qur’an and Sunna, a particular
worldview and a particular interpretation of early Islamic history. More specifically it
signifies a particular methodology of interpreting the Islamic
tradition as a way of distinguishing it from other approaches considered not to
be based on the supposedly as-salaf as-salih manhaj. This concept of
Salafism is also supported by the large
amount of evidence ‘Abdul Haqq procures (pp.2-20) to argue that the idea of the
salaf ( however appropriated and whatever its actual manhaj related
implications are) existed throughout
Islamic history .

Salafism as a concept is, however, as I show in my book
much more than this. It is also a religio-political doctrine purporting to
bestow an amnesty on all of the Companions of the Prophet in the midst of
socio-political chaos that characterised early Islam in order to validate the
methodology of Hadith criticism developed by the early muhaddithun such as Bukhari and Muslim as well as to counter the emerging Shi’i
theology of Imamism. Lastly, it denotes an approach to conceptualizing
the Islamic tradition premised on a pre-supposition of a regressive view of the
nature of history and time. As such, in these respects, it is shared by all classical Sunni
madhahib.

REPLY TO POINT TWO:

‘Abdul Haq’s second point of critique which is rather minor concerns
my statement that that Shaykh Yahya al-Hajūrī
from Yamen held “senior positions on religious councils responsible for issuing
fatwas” is indeed valid. Nonetheless Shaykh Yahya al-Hajūrī in temrs of his
manhaj is indeed a proponent of NTS or neo-ahl hadithism something that ‘Abdul
Haq himself does not question.

REPLY TO POINT THREE

‘Abdul Haqq’s third point
of critique is that I have confused the Zahiri manhaj with that of Ahl-hadith by stating that :

The NTS
manhaj reason and reason-based, non-textual sources of knowledge {sic},
which...are considered to function outside the scope of the ‘valid’ religious
knowledge contained in the Qur’an and the hadith-based Sunna.

But ‘Abdul Haqq does not elaborate
whatsoever on what basis the Zahiri manhaj
is different from that of (neo)-ahl hadith /NTS . But as shown in my
forthcoming edited volume on
Sunna their respective manahij are more or less identical based on great
similarities they share in terms of their
concept of sunna and its status in Islamic law.

REPLY TO POINT FOUR:

In his fourth point ‘Abdul Haqq asserts
that:

“ Duderija main crux is that he appears to claim that certain views,
adopted by some Salafi scholars, are
not only adhered to by all Salafis,
but also presents these views as if they are exclusively ‘Salafi’ or ‘NTS’, as
he refers to it. One of the main issues in which Duderija does this is in
regards to how Salafis view “the Other”. Duderija (2010) states on p.81:

Here we
investigate how several qur’anic verses, when interpreted on the basis of the
NTS manhaj, can result in the exclusivist construction of the religious Self vis-a-vis
the Other advocated by NTS thought.

I have already dealt with the issue of the definition and meaning of
Salafism above. I have never claimed
that NTS / (neo)-ahl-hadith/salafis have a monopoly on what I term exclusivist
construction of the religious Self is-a-vis the Other. The NTS were the focus of my study
and I cannot be faulted for that. The fact that some other classical madhhahib
and the manahij on which they are based share this view is also concerning and
I will come back to this point later.

What I have
argued is that given the NTS’s concept of sunna as ittiba’ of ‘sahih hadith” as
defined by the NTS/ ahl-hadith muhaditthun
and given the role law ‘sahih
hadith’ as per NTS manhaj ( which I
describe in length in the relevant articles and in the book
indicated above ) have in Islamic law and legal theory , the proponents of NTS
are obliged if they are to stay true to their manhaj to hold these
ahadith as normative. I have never asserted that NTS do not resort to fiqh at
all but that the nature of their fiqh is characterised by their broader
manhaj that I have described /delineated in some detail,especially in my book.

‘Abdul Haqq
does not have the audacity to actually quote in full the examples of qur’anic verses(
when interpreted according to the NTS manhaj) or over half a dozen ‘sahih” hadith ( p. 81-84
in my article ) I have used to establish why NTS have a exclusivist construction of
the religious Self is-a-vis the Other. He only refers to the hadith of Aisha in a footnote but omits not only all
of the Qur’anic verses and in
particular but also additional 6 ‘sahih hadith” ( hence normative for all who
adhere to NTS manhaj) that I cite in full again:

2.Narrated Abu Hurayra: ‘The Prophet said, “Jews and
Christians do not dye their hair so you should do the opposite of what they
do.”’ (Bukhari, Sahı h, 7.786)

3. Narrated ‘Abd Allah ibn ‘Amr ibn al-’As: ‘Allah’s
Messenger (peace be upon him) said, “He does not belong to us who imitates
other people. Do not imitate the Jews or the Christians, for the Jews’
salutation is to make a gesture with the fingers and the Christians’ salutation
is to make a gesture with the palms of the hands.”’ (Tirmidhi, 4648, classified
as weak).

4.Narrated Abu Hurayra: ‘Suhayl ibn Abu Salih said: “I went
out with my father to Syria. The people passed by the cloisters in which there
were Christians and began to salute them. My father said: ‘Do not give them
salutation first, for Abu Hurayrah reported the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon
him) as saying: Do not salute them [Jews and Christians] first, and when you
meet them on the road, force them to go to the narrowest part of it.’”’ (Abu
Dawud, 5186)

5. Narrated Abu Hurayra: The Prophet (peace be upon him)
said: ‘Religion will continue to prevail as long as people hasten to break the
fast, because the Jews and the Christians delay doing so.’ (Abu Dawud, 2346)

6.Ibn ‘Abbas reported: ‘The Messenger of Allah fasted on the
day of ‘Ashurah and ordered the people to fast on it. The people said: “O
Messenger of Allah, it is a day that the Jews and Christians honour.” The
Prophet said, “When the following year comes – Allah willing – we shall fast on
the ninth.” The death of the Prophet came before the following year.’ This is
recorded by Muslim and Abu Dawud. In one version the wording is: ‘If I remain
until next year, we shall fast the ninth,’ meaning, the tenth. This is related
by Muslim and Abu Dawud.

‘Abdul Haqq
tacitly actually concedes that the correct (from the vantage-point of
NTS manhaj) interpretation of this body of texts does result in such a construction
by saying that I am “holding only
Salafis account for what is present within the Qur’ān and hadith !”( p.27) or
that ” hold Salafism to account for the words of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be
upon him)”( p.28).

Moreover
‘Abdul Haqq accuses me of cherry picking the hadith and not including that ones
that do talk about tolerance of non-Muslims. In this regard he is only able to adduce
three ahadith ( p.28-29) in addition to
a rather vague and decontextualized reference to one Qur’anic ayat ( a hallmark
of NTS manhaj ) . If anything this feature of NTS thought just further
highlights the problematic nature of their manhaj since it does not have
interpretational mechanisms to reconcile these conflicting textual bodies of
evidence for reasons that are inherent to the very nature of the NTS manhaj (
especially comprehensive contextualisation) as I describe and delineate it.

REPLY TO
POINT FIVE:

‘Abdul Haqq asserts that I am intentionally picking
on NTS to be the only ones who consider Christians and Jews as Kuffar . I have
already stated that in none of my articles on NTS have I made an assertion that
it is only the proponents of NTS have a
monopoly on this interpretation but that NTS are the focus of my study.

REPLY TO
POINT SIX:

‘Abdul Haqq
argues that Al-Qahtani is not representative
of NTS manhaj because he is supposedly a member of the Ikhwan . But this is incorrect because his bookal-wala wal bara’ ,which is the actual subject of discussion, is very much part of
NTS manhaj . Indeed the book was defended as a master’s thesis at the
Department of Aqida of the Umm al-Qura University in Makkah, one of the main centers
of NTS thought. This cannot be denied!

REPLY TO POINT SEVEN:

‘Abdul Haqq takes issue with the fact that I link NTS manhaj with that of
takfiri-jihadist such as Al-Qaeda. He considers that this is an “overestimation”
yet he never goes into the nitty gritty of how NTS manhaj is similar of different from that of the takfiri-jihadists to
support his claims.

He cites the works of some counter-terrorism experts who do not have a
clue about Islamic hermeneutics/legal theory to argue that those who adhere to
‘true’ Salafism ( i.e. NTS ) are less
likely to get involved in takfiri-violence.

However, on the question if NTS is part of the problem rather than part
of the solution ( or an antidote to be more precise ) when it comes to stemming takfiri-jihadist(
such as ISIS) violence recent discussions of the
leading experts are not in agreement or even suggest the contrary. For example Jacob
Olidort writes :

“Quietism,”[in my parlance NTS] or abstaining from political involvement
or activism, is merely a placeholder rather than a principle for most Salafi
groups today. "Quietists,” activists, jihadists, and other Salafis are all
composed of the same theological DNA. They base themselves on texts and
concepts developed over centuries by communities of established Muslim
scholars. Indeed, this is a crucial component of the Salafi claim to
authenticity. It is therefore not a big conceptual leap to go from quietism to
jihadism.The turbulent politics of the Middle East
have encouraged Salafis to shift their approaches to political engagement;
where Salafis stand today is not necessarily where they will stand tomorrow.

There have been many cases of so-called “quietist” Salafis throughout the
twentieth century who became activist. Most recently, hundreds of thousands of
quietists became politically active in parliamentary elections after the Arab
Spring revolutions, perhaps the most famous example being the Nour party in
Egypt.

The civil war in Syria is also shifting the terms of the debate among
Salafis about whether to engage in political activism. Before the war, the
intra-Salafi debate was focused solely on the merits of engaging in
parliamentary politics and on whether it was appropriate to excommunicate
Muslims who disagreed with them. The discussion has now shifted to focus on how
best to address the growing humanitarian problem, which often puts quietists
and jihadists on the same page. The human toll of the crisis in Syria (which
activist and quietist Salafis depict as a result of the Asad government’s
Shiite faith) has led some non-violent Salafis—such as the Lebanese Salafi Ahmed
al-Assir—to take up arms and
lead battalions in Syria.

In fact, as I have pointed out in an article on
debates between quietist and jihadis, if one adopts the concepts, methods and basic assumptions of
Salafism as a framework of reasoning, the radicals’ theological arguments may
not come across as being quite as preposterous as some quietist Salafis would
have us believe. Employing quietist Salafis to counter the Islamic State’s
ideology may, therefore, actually convince some potential radicals of the
merits of the Islamic State’s reasoning, rather than persuade them to abandon
that way of thinking.

Another leading terrorism expert Schmit in his article on Violent and Non-Violent Extremism: Two
Sides of the Same Coin? argues along he same lines in the context of how to
deal with NTS in the West and writes
(p.24) :

In the view of knowledgeable observers who have watched the operations of
Islamists in Western societies very closely, the two camps[violent and
non-violent extremists] share a similar uncompromising worldview and in the end
disagree mainly on tactics. If this is indeed the case, collaboration (as
opposed to informal contacts and functional i.e. non-political engagements)
should be avoided since it strengthens Islamist extremists in their battle for
religious leadership of Islam in the West.

I share the views of these scholars.

Let me add that none of these experts, either those with whom I agree or
disagree, are well acquainted with Islamic hermeneutics or have attempted to precisely
delineate the NTS manhaj in the manner I have done in my scholarship.

REPLY TO POINT EIGHT:

‘Abdul Haqq takes issue with my statement that NTS is distinct from the
classical Islamic tradition of scholarship. What I actually have said is :

It is distinct from the madhhab-based approach
to the Islamic tradition, which is regarded as embodying the most substantial
part of the Sunni interpretational spectrum.

In my reply to point one I have shown that I
do consider NTS to be the contemporary embodiment of ahl-hadith
manhaj which indeed distinguishes itself ( which is not too say that is
does not share any manhaj presuppositions with other madhahib-
as I clearly state it is a spectrum) for example in
their concept of the nature and the scope of the concept of Sunna from lets’
say Hanafi and Maliki usulis. In my book, especially chapter one, I explain
these differences in more detail. There is no contradiction in my position in
this regard.

In relation to offensive jihad engaged in by some takfiri-jihadist
movements such as ISIS and Al-Qaeda Abud Haqq rightly point out that these are
not restricted to only NTS manhaj but have a broader standing in the Islamic
tradition if it is interpreted by means of classical manahij such as in the Shafi’i
madhab( e.g. Umdat us-Sālik by a Shāfi’ī and Sūfī
scholar Ahmad ibn an-Naqīb al-Misrī (circa 702-769 AH/1302-1367 CE and its offensive
jihad doctrine). This is very concerning
and I have constantly been raising this
point on different academic and non-academic list-serves and other fora but it has mainly fallen on deaf ears. The same holds true of oppressive gender and
slavery practices which I discuss here.

So in summary, except for a minor second point, ‘Abdul Haqq’s ‘critique’
not only does not have any foundations but demonstrates why classical embedded
manahij, may they be ahl-hadith or more prevalent sunni madhab based , must be critically and
unapologetically assessed and their role
in religion-based violence ( with respect to both other Muslims as well as
non-Muslims), strong elements of intolerance and gender based oppression recognized for what they are. As I have
demonstrated in my work on critical/progressive Muslims
alternative of the Islamic tradition are perfectly possible but they require, at times, radically different
interpretational assumptions to those embodied by mainstream traditional Sunni
as well as NTS /ahl-hadith manahij. And no I am not a Shi’i as many of the
issues discussed here , albeit in a differ form, apply also to some versions of
classical Shi’i thought.

[1]
Meaning more of less method of interpretation and the assumptions governing it.

Translate

Google+ Followers

Follow by Email

About Me

Adis Duderija is currently a Visiting Senior Lecturer at the University Malaya, Gender Studies. He received his Ph. D in 2010 from the University of Western Australia. He is the author of Constructing Religiously Ideal ‘Believer’ and ‘Muslim Woman’ Concepts: Neo-Traditional Salafi and Progressive Muslim Methods of Interpretation (Manahij), Palgrave, 2011. His other publications can be found on the tabs above.